Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 09.12.2019, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The addition was made on the grounds that buyers failed to comply with notices issued under Section 133(6) and the sale proceeds were treated as ingenuine, without considering that Section 68 might not apply to sale proceeds.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex parte as the assessee failed to attend the proceedings since 2022, and its company had been struck off the records of the ROC. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, affirming it, and consequently dismissed all grounds raised by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether an addition under Section 68 is valid for sale proceeds when buyers fail to comply with Section 133(6) notices, and if the seller can be penalized for the buyer's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
68, 133(6), 145
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi, dated 09.12.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 on the ground that buyers have not complied with notices issued 133(6) under section without appreciating that the seller cannot be penalized for non-compliance on the part of the buyer
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of sale proceeds of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 received from buyer without appreciating that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the sum received on account of sale proceeds and it is restricted to the sum introduced in books of accounts as credit 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 on the ground that buyers have not complied with notices issued 133(6) under section without appreciating that the request of the assessee that he may be given chance to pursue the buyer for compliance and as thus violated the principle of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 by treating the amount realized by way of sale proceed as ingenuine without appreciating the fact that there is no infirmity in the trading section or books of accounts which stand accepted under section 145. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by conforming addition on the basis of factually incorrect observation that has not contested before the Ld. AO that assessment cannot be framed against AO that assessment cannot be framed against nonexistent entity 6. Any other ground of appeal which is deemed fit at the time of submission of statement of facts and other details.”
At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. I have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record.
It transpires from the records that vide order-sheet entry dated 9.12.2021 it is recorded that learned counsel of the assessee Shri Jagdish Ajmani, CA had intimated that the company has been struck off from the records of the ROC. Thereafter, the Revenue had sought time to ascertain the status of the company, as it was intimated that Revenue had filed an application. It is further transpired from 5.9.2022. On 17.5.2023 it was intimated by learned DR that application of the Revenue was still pending.
3.1 Looking to the facts of the present case, appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex parte to the assessee, as the assessee has failed to file any supporting evidence in respect of the grounds taken against the impugned order. Further, no one has represented on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of the relevant material, we do not see any infirmity into the order of the learned CIT(A). Same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 18th April, 2024.